|
View Poll Results: What the hell am i doing in here? | |||
Yes | 19 | 59.38% | |
No | 13 | 40.63% | |
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
11.08.2006, 07:40 AM | #41 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,360
|
i respect radiohead for experimenting. i don't much respect them for being on a major and then complaining about what that has brought them.
i rarely listened to or ever will listen to them. as a cult pop band i can respect them for their music. they try new things and branch out into electronics, (a natural progression in my eyes) and then every stupid cunt in the mainstream creams at how unbelievably alternative and original and genius they are. nope, not really, if you are the type who does not believe and buy into what corporate arts tell you to you'll probably know that the music radiohead made was never in anyway terribly new or innovative. i have no problem with that, you can hardly expect a pop band to make a boards of canada album can you? underground people don't like the idea of kid a etc. being hyped to shit and called innovative and original and experimental etc. because they've been listening to music a million times more challenging and innovative for years. mainstream people haven't heard said underground music and are ignorant to it, and believe that because what radiohead do is new to them it must be new to music. this is a classic conflict, it's happned with a million bands. put simply, kid a is innovative for radiohead and radiohead alone, they are a cult pop band. they will always make music with this kind of overbearing poppy edge to it. radiohead are innovators of the pop format. all the musicians they copied and were influenced by for kid a are innovators of electronica and music in general. of course, to someone who reads the wire magazine kid a will not sound so amazingly innovative, what it could sound like tho, is a nice distillation of experimental sounds into the pop format. you guys can bitch or argue if you want. it's pretty pointless. to me the reason for music is for people to enjoy and be inspired by it. so some kid who isn't aware or interested in non mainstream music, but probably thinks he's a hip as fuck for listening to the bands that get less video plays on mtv2 might go and pick up kid a tomorow and get his mind blowed. so what? good for him! not everyone has the mind to appreciate, the desire to seek out or the interest to explore and enjoy more challenging and underground music, so if radiohead or someone comes along and distills some of these innovations into the pop format for more people to hear and enjoy i say good for them. in the future, radioheads music will sound a lot more dated and uninteresting i'm sure. the music it was influenced by will probably outlast it. |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
11.08.2006, 08:45 AM | #42 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lexington,KY USA
Posts: 2,512
|
As many have already expressed about said record: ''I like it and enjoy it, but I wouldn't really call it innovative.'' This is true with me also. The only innovation from this record is when you comapre it to radioheads other releases. It is true, the same band that did the bends and ok computer (argued by some as the best modern day albums) can create an album that is ''experimental'' within the realms of radioheadom. of course, many other artists and groups have been doing this for decades (I saw someone mentioned Varese) and will be doing the same type of output long after the greenwood bros and yorke hang their hats.
What i'm saying is I like the record, it puts me to sleep but I wouldn't call it innovative unless I'm speaking to kids that only listen to the radio. |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
11.08.2006, 03:11 PM | #43 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wexford, rep of ireland
Posts: 6,930
|
kid a aint innovative. its just damn good. idioteque is one of the finest radiohead songs ever.
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
11.08.2006, 03:29 PM | #44 |
expwy. to yr skull
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,204
|
whats the point of saying it isnt innovative, it is not as though radiohead ever came out and said kid a was. I believe it is though, and i have listened to many electronic artistss, and no one really has given any specifics to dispute its innovation.
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
11.08.2006, 03:36 PM | #45 |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wexford, rep of ireland
Posts: 6,930
|
i thought the arguement was the album was innovative not the band. the album was just a progression for the band........... just a project to keep em doing what they wanted to do. the arguement of innovativness coming from a band that made the bends is defunct cuz ok computer is the perfect bridging gap between the two.
radohead deseve respect for one thing. the constantly make good music, with absolutely no restrictions, pure 100% control of the output (like sy) and still can sell out stadiums and sell millions of albums worldwide with music that cannot be described as mainstream. the highlight onf all radiohead gigs is the obscure odd tracks, not the karmapolices or the fake plastic trees (even those songs are great) also they attract the most diverse range of folk to their gigs, everyone from kids, emo kjids, metal kids, indie kids to their parents to their parent to whomever............ maybe if digressed too far but i like radiohead a lot and make no excuses for it even if they did record pablo honey!!! kid a is not innovative, its just damn good! |
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |
11.09.2006, 03:55 AM | #46 | |
invito al cielo
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,784
|
Quote:
i dont follow you...i prefer to write in stream-of-drunken-conciousness form |
|
|QUOTE AND REPLY| |